Menu

Why All Countries Are Developing Nations

Development can not be considered a final endpoint or stage in history; on the contrary, it must be understood as a process of continuous transformation. Development cannot be adequately understood without realizing that countries’ processes of development are essentially different, this is to say that development cannot be reproduced, assimilated, generalized or established since it is a natural process of evolution particular to a geographical area. There is simply no one-way street to development.

It should be clear that development is an organic process that results from the specific interaction of three elements: institutions, markets and state. All these factors explain the different rates, routes and developmental characteristics of a particular country. The characteristics and rates at which countries develop are essentially different across space and time; therefore any generalizations made with the attempt to standardize the logic behind development can be considered arbitrary, as these obviate history, singularities between (and within) countries, politics, economics, geography, demographics, etc. This is to say that there is no way to compare the development patterns of any two countries, we can only establish similarities and occasionally some correlations between the two.

Unfortunately, the idea of modernization has been thought of as a direct equivalent of “westernization”, and as a consequence this has deeply influenced perceptions on how less developed countries must industrialize. However, modernity might or might not lead to progress. The concepts of modernity or development itself should not be thought of as direct equivalents of industrialization. Development is also related to the “betterment” of living conditions, sustainability, equality, etc. Hence, attempting to understand development in the hands of elements like GDP indicators is erroneous. Economic indicators reflect neither the quality, nor the true accomplishments of a so-called developed/developing country. In the same token, neither the fields of economics or political science by themselves could lead to a proper understanding of development. Furthermore, only by looking at the evolution of the political economies of countries in light of national and international historical circumstances, we are able to obtain realistic indicators of how successful a country has been in moving towards more advanced stages of development.

When it comes to economics, historical accounts have showed that markets alone are not going to lead to progress, much less to equality. Markets do not embody the importance of world historical time. As discussed previously, development can only be understood as the juncture of the elements of institutions, state, and markets; all of which are essentially different across space and time. Without realizing that industrialization is only a stage in development, many countries and theories have failed to understand that modernity itself is the product of a long-term infinite process (as development has no endpoint), and that involves more than markets, economics or statistics.

Therefore, the attempts made by schools of thought, economists, political scientists, financial institutions, governments, etc, to provide “recipes for development” as well as theories that explain the causes of development or underdevelopment, are deceiving as these seem to assume homogeneity, simplicity, and appear to have a very skewed idea of what development truly means. The problem of “theorizing development” is deeply rooted in a general disregard for key issues such as institutional pluralism, social stratification, national and international politics, human rights, world historical time, etc. ; therefore, it is essential to focus on the institutional fabric of specific geographic areas, characteristics of national markets, trade patterns, natural and human resources, state effectiveness, quality of life, and the overall harmony that each of these elements have in order to work together towards a common goal: progress. Then and only then can we truly understand that while some countries are more developed than others, no country has ever stopped developing, and therefore we can conclude that all countries are developing countries.

Post navigation

2 thoughts on “Why All Countries Are Developing Nations”

I know some economic development professors that would argue there are standardized markers. But I really appreciate your well thought out thesis, because the best progress comes from grassroots input, and listening to the system. We are arrogant to assume we know what’s best for any given society. Good job pointing this out. And I love the bilingual blog!